Peter Gammons is reporting that the sale of the Houston Astros should be completed by November and is somehow tied to a new collective bargaining agreement. Part of the deal would have the Astros move to the AL West and bring the AL to 15 teams.He reports that the expanded playoffs could come as soon as 2012.

I think these moves do have some implications for the Indians. Expanded wild card teams would be especially good for us at this time. But it also gives further importance to being "all-in".

Also, as far as scheduling, this would mean less games against the AL Central. That brings good and bad with it I think. Presently, the number of games we have with division opponents seems like overkill. On the other hand, it also seems like most AL Central games are sort of a death match with any of the opponents.

GhostofTedCox wrote:Peter Gammons is reporting that the sale of the Houston Astros should be completed by November and is somehow tied to a new collective bargaining agreement. Part of the deal would have the Astros move to the AL West and bring the AL to 15 teams.He reports that the expanded playoffs could come as soon as 2012.

I think these moves do have some implications for the Indians. Expanded wild card teams would be especially good for us at this time. But it also gives further importance to being "all-in".

Also, as far as scheduling, this would mean less games against the AL Central. That brings good and bad with it I think. Presently, the number of games we have with division opponents seems like overkill. On the other hand, it also seems like most AL Central games are sort of a death match with any of the opponents.

I'd personally like to see the Indians in the NL Central. Why? I think the DH is a further disadvantage for small market teams. The additional $$$ in DH salaries for a guy that is basically half of a player could be used to strengthen additional areas of the team. Just my opinion though.

GhostofTedCox wrote:Peter Gammons is reporting that the sale of the Houston Astros should be completed by November and is somehow tied to a new collective bargaining agreement. Part of the deal would have the Astros move to the AL West and bring the AL to 15 teams.He reports that the expanded playoffs could come as soon as 2012.

I think these moves do have some implications for the Indians. Expanded wild card teams would be especially good for us at this time. But it also gives further importance to being "all-in".

Also, as far as scheduling, this would mean less games against the AL Central. That brings good and bad with it I think. Presently, the number of games we have with division opponents seems like overkill. On the other hand, it also seems like most AL Central games are sort of a death match with any of the opponents.

I'd personally like to see the Indians in the NL Central. Why? I think the DH is a further disadvantage for small market teams. The additional $$$ in DH salaries for a guy that is basically half of a player could be used to strengthen additional areas of the team. Just my opinion though.

Astute observation about the use of resources.. then again, doesn't it come down to how the club wants to use the DH?

The addition of a second wild card team sounds like a means to permit the biggest spenders the opportunity to buy their way into the post season.. as it stands right now..and has historically been the case.. three fourths of the play off spots typically go to the top one fourth of the payroll list..

Additionally, it will be interesting to see how the two WC teams are treated.. a one game, win or go home scenario certainly brings drama, but seems hardly fair to the two teams.. a best of five scenario extends the playoffs into late October / early November.. While I thoroughly enjoyed the "Snow Game" in 1997 (watched from in side the Terrace Club).. it's still mighty cold.. If being cold and winning a World Series goes hand in hand.. an extra sweater will NOT BE A PROBLEM....

daingean wrote:I'd personally like to see the Indians in the NL Central. Why? I think the DH is a further disadvantage for small market teams. The additional $$$ in DH salaries for a guy that is basically half of a player could be used to strengthen additional areas of the team. Just my opinion though.

Agree 100% on the DH being an added hindrance to small market AL clubs. Just one more starting player you have to pay. You don't pay pitchers extra to hit in the NL and you don't pay that extra bench bat a starting salary.

Sounded like a few teams were against moving to the AL for this very reason (D'backs for one, though they aren't really small market).

Personally wouldn't want to see the Tribe in the NL though.....original AL team...just wouldn't feel right.

IMO though if you do bring the Astros to the AL (something I think is the worst idea Selig has ever had...and that's saying something), that you will need to get the DH in both leagues (or gone). You will have interleague player ever day....just seems stupid to have teams playing by different rules than they are used to every single day.

GhostofTedCox wrote:Peter Gammons is reporting that the sale of the Houston Astros should be completed by November and is somehow tied to a new collective bargaining agreement. Part of the deal would have the Astros move to the AL West and bring the AL to 15 teams.He reports that the expanded playoffs could come as soon as 2012.

I think these moves do have some implications for the Indians. Expanded wild card teams would be especially good for us at this time. But it also gives further importance to being "all-in".

Also, as far as scheduling, this would mean less games against the AL Central. That brings good and bad with it I think. Presently, the number of games we have with division opponents seems like overkill. On the other hand, it also seems like most AL Central games are sort of a death match with any of the opponents.

Hate this move if true. All it really does is guarantee that both the Red Sox and Yanks are both in the playoffs. This additional Wild Card talk started to really come out in 2008/2009 when the Rays started threatening the Red Sox/Yanks for playoff spots.

and really we want another Wild Card after THIS season?!? Add another Wild Card this year...and the last week of the season is meaningless. Both the Rays and Sox are in, both the Braves and Cards are in. No great finish to the season. One wild card has already destroyed some great pennant races, adding another will only further do this.

daingean wrote:I'd personally like to see the Indians in the NL Central. Why? I think the DH is a further disadvantage for small market teams. The additional $$$ in DH salaries for a guy that is basically half of a player could be used to strengthen additional areas of the team. Just my opinion though.

Agree 100% on the DH being an added hindrance to small market AL clubs. Just one more starting player you have to pay. You don't pay pitchers extra to hit in the NL and you don't pay that extra bench bat a starting salary.

Sounded like a few teams were against moving to the AL for this very reason (D'backs for one, though they aren't really small market).

Personally wouldn't want to see the Tribe in the NL though.....original AL team...just wouldn't feel right.

IMO though if you do bring the Astros to the AL (something I think is the worst idea Selig has ever had...and that's saying something), that you will need to get the DH in both leagues (or gone). You will have interleague player ever day....just seems stupid to have teams playing by different rules than they are used to every single day.

Ever since the interleague play started the line between the two leagues has faded. I think adding rivalries like the Reds and Pirates would be good for the team. I am not a fan of the DH (was when I was a kid but then moved to Atlanta and saw several games - now I think the NL is the thinking mans league and the AL is not). I also do not like the DH and wish there were 2 divisions but I understand the economics of it. But you play 162 game season and well you should know the best team by then. As for Interleague, I would have had a mid-season tournament (Like England soccer's FA Cup) instead of making the games count.

TonyIPI wrote:So 15 teams in the AL and NL....that's a scheduling nightmare. Would mean one AL and one NL team would be off every night unless there is going to be one interleague series every 3-game set.

Not sure how it works if the Astros move to the AL...

I'm thinking it'll be interleague play year round. At least that's my hope. I'm sick of June being full of interleague games every year.

daingean wrote:Ever since the interleague play started the line between the two leagues has faded. I think adding rivalries like the Reds and Pirates would be good for the team. I am not a fan of the DH (was when I was a kid but then moved to Atlanta and saw several games - now I think the NL is the thinking mans league and the AL is not). I also do not like the DH and wish there were 2 divisions but I understand the economics of it. But you play 162 game season and well you should know the best team by then. As for Interleague, I would have had a mid-season tournament (Like England soccer's FA Cup) instead of making the games count.

I disagree. Even playing the Reds 6 times a year I see no rivalry. I dont' think adding another 6 games will create one. What creates rivalries is 2 teams being good and battling, not proximity. I mean, are the Bengals and Browns truely rivals in football? i mean, maybe rivals for last place, but it's juts a game between two Ohio teams really.

Same thing will happen in baseball. Can't force a rivalry.

I agree with you on the 162 games thing. Really dont' understand why after 162 games you need to let another team in that couldn't win their division, but o well.

ha, I actually like that idea of games not counting. Still boggles the mind that you'd take virtually a month out of the year and have 2 teams playing each other that are used to different rules. it'd be like the Cavs playing the Lakers but in LA there is no 3-pt line. Or the Browns playing the Lions, but not being allowed to use a seperate place kicker and having to use Joe the toe Thomas to kick extra points/field goals. Just ridiculous. Either get rid of interleague play or make the rules the same.

TonyIPI wrote:So 15 teams in the AL and NL....that's a scheduling nightmare. Would mean one AL and one NL team would be off every night unless there is going to be one interleague series every 3-game set.

Not sure how it works if the Astros move to the AL...

I'm thinking it'll be interleague play year round. At least that's my hope. I'm sick of June being full of interleague games every year.

As long as it's not 9 IL games in a row in an NL park, that would be acceptable. Make no mistake about IL play..it's here to stay because MLB makes HUGE $$$$ at it. The differences in the leagues, with & without a DH, adds drama and friction.. (and the use of resources argument astutely brought up in an earlier posting..not by me)..

Scheduling would indeed be a nightmare. Season long IL games are a problem as long as the rules are different and would be distracting during the stretch pennant race.

One solution might be to give each team a "bye" period of about 3-4 days. Every team would have a "bye" about every 2 months. Might be easier to make up rain-outs with less doubleheaders. Hot weather teams might be happy to take a "bye" during the grueling summer, and the Indians would be happy with time off in April. Just an idea.

I also would not be opposed to an 154 game schedule the way it was before 1962 as long as there is an additional playoff round. Baseball used to be America's National Pastime, and too many games might be part of the problem. How do you make up the revenue from the 4 lost home games? Maybe better revenue sharing from a Pay Per View LCS.

GhostofTedCox wrote:Scheduling would indeed be a nightmare. Season long IL games are a problem as long as the rules are different and would be distracting during the stretch pennant race.

One solution might be to give each team a "bye" period of about 3-4 days. Every team would have a "bye" about every 2 months. Might be easier to make up rain-outs with less doubleheaders. Hot weather teams might be happy to take a "bye" during the grueling summer, and the Indians would be happy with time off in April. Just an idea.

I also would not be opposed to an 154 game schedule the way it was before 1962 as long as there is an additional playoff round. Baseball used to be America's National Pastime, and too many games might be part of the problem. How do you make up the revenue from the 4 lost home games? Maybe better revenue sharing from a Pay Per View LCS.

Starting pitchers would hat the bye period. It would disrupt their routine. At least that is what Leo Mazzone would say.

GhostofTedCox wrote:Scheduling would indeed be a nightmare. Season long IL games are a problem as long as the rules are different and would be distracting during the stretch pennant race.

One solution might be to give each team a "bye" period of about 3-4 days. Every team would have a "bye" about every 2 months. Might be easier to make up rain-outs with less doubleheaders. Hot weather teams might be happy to take a "bye" during the grueling summer, and the Indians would be happy with time off in April. Just an idea.

I also would not be opposed to an 154 game schedule the way it was before 1962 as long as there is an additional playoff round. Baseball used to be America's National Pastime, and too many games might be part of the problem. How do you make up the revenue from the 4 lost home games? Maybe better revenue sharing from a Pay Per View LCS.

Yeah I agree, the 'bye week' would be more detrimental than helpful. Plus how much would it suck to be that team on a bye the last 3 games of the year? Especially if you are in a playoff race.

Really don't think the extra 8 games are what have caused baseball to falter. And a pay per view LCS would only futher alienate fans. Reason football does so well is because almost all their games are on regular TV. While I'm sure most of us have access to cable or satelitte a lot of people don't. Too many games are on cable and not available free to the average person. Pay per view would only make this worse.

Better revenue sharing is a must....but needs to come from places like YES.

GeronimoSon wrote:As long as it's not 9 IL games in a row in an NL park, that would be acceptable. Make no mistake about IL play..it's here to stay because MLB makes HUGE $$$$ at it. The differences in the leagues, with & without a DH, adds drama and friction.. (and the use of resources argument astutely brought up in an earlier posting..not by me)..

I agree that IL play is here to stay. The money part is kind of 'meh' to me. Yeah they piont to the attendances in JUNE. Try playing IL the 2nd week of April thru the first week in May when all college kids are in school and every school kid is as well (not to mention the weather). Bet this vast amount of money made starts to go down. June should be the best month for teams overall at the gates. Yes, the contenders in September, but June is the start of summer, kids are out of school and parents are more willing to go to weekday night games with younger kids.

One reason I want to see IL play year round if they do go to 15 teams each league. Would love to see what an IL series the 2nd week of April pulls in.

One thing I really hate about the logic in moving a team from the NL to AL is the arguement that it's unfair to the NL teams having 16 teams...that it's harder to make the playoffs. But is it really?

Yanks have only once since 1995 not made the playoffs....and if we had a 2nd wild card, they would have that year. So basically you just guarantee the Yanks in the playoffs every year. Leave it at 14 and 16....take the Yanks out, and the odds (simply by playoff spots/teams) are actually in favor of the 16 NL teams (5 playoff spots for 16 teams = 31.3% chance; 4 playoff spots for 13 teams = 30.8% chance).

While the Phillies and some others have had good runs, even they had some down years the past decade. The Yanks spending is just unparrelled in this league, even in regards to the Phillies and BoSox. They alone IMO balance the leagues as they are. Leave it at 16 and 14, especially if you add a 5th playoff team.

GhostofTedCox wrote:Scheduling would indeed be a nightmare. Season long IL games are a problem as long as the rules are different and would be distracting during the stretch pennant race.

One solution might be to give each team a "bye" period of about 3-4 days. Every team would have a "bye" about every 2 months. Might be easier to make up rain-outs with less doubleheaders. Hot weather teams might be happy to take a "bye" during the grueling summer, and the Indians would be happy with time off in April. Just an idea.

I also would not be opposed to an 154 game schedule the way it was before 1962 as long as there is an additional playoff round. Baseball used to be America's National Pastime, and too many games might be part of the problem. How do you make up the revenue from the 4 lost home games? Maybe better revenue sharing from a Pay Per View LCS.

Yeah I agree, the 'bye week' would be more detrimental than helpful. Plus how much would it suck to be that team on a bye the last 3 games of the year? Especially if you are in a playoff race.

Really don't think the extra 8 games are what have caused baseball to falter. And a pay per view LCS would only futher alienate fans. Reason football does so well is because almost all their games are on regular TV. While I'm sure most of us have access to cable or satelitte a lot of people don't. Too many games are on cable and not available free to the average person. Pay per view would only make this worse.

Better revenue sharing is a must....but needs to come from places like YES.

I think football is so successful is the more level playing field than any other professional sport. In order I would say that:

1. Importance of the Draft v. Baseball - NFL players are immediate contributors while in baseball they are delayed. Draft order should be tiered by team's revenue not by what is spent. Inside each tier (thirds or fourths) teams can be ordered by finish or a more balanced approach....by finish is so inconsequential in baseball

2. Revenue sharing and salary cap

3. Television broadcasts - ESPN (baseball's main broadcaster especially prime time) really only cares about the Yankees and Red Sox. I have basically stopped turning to that channel. This alienates the rest of the baseball fans throughout the leagues.

daingean wrote:I think football is so successful is the more level playing field than any other professional sport. In order I would say that:

1. Importance of the Draft v. Baseball - NFL players are immediate contributors while in baseball they are delayed. Draft order should be tiered by team's revenue not by what is spent. Inside each tier (thirds or fourths) teams can be ordered by finish or a more balanced approach....by finish is so inconsequential in baseball

2. Revenue sharing and salary cap

3. Television broadcasts - ESPN (baseball's main broadcaster especially prime time) really only cares about the Yankees and Red Sox. I have basically stopped turning to that channel. This alienates the rest of the baseball fans throughout the leagues.

I disagree on the cap. Non-guaranteed salaries plays a bigger role IMO.

IMO you missed the biggest thing....all TV deals are done internally and NO REGIONAL CABLE CHANNELS. There is no YES network making nearly $100M a year for the Yanks (vs the little STO makes).

Hermie13 wrote:I disagree on the cap. Non-guaranteed salaries plays a bigger role IMO.

IMO you missed the biggest thing....all TV deals are done internally and NO REGIONAL CABLE CHANNELS. There is no YES network making nearly $100M a year for the Yanks (vs the little STO makes).

Do agree with most of your points though.

I don't think we are very far apart. Basically the financial system is off in baseball.

Off in every sport (not as much in football), but yeah seems like we're on the same wavelength.

Well I basically only follow baseball and football. I do follow English Premier League soccer a little and it may be worse than baseball but there are a few trophies (some are won by the lesser clubs) and the relegation thing is kind of unique. Football does have a better system and it is thriving while baseball is not.

Hermie13 wrote:I disagree on the cap. Non-guaranteed salaries plays a bigger role IMO.

IMO you missed the biggest thing....all TV deals are done internally and NO REGIONAL CABLE CHANNELS. There is no YES network making nearly $100M a year for the Yanks (vs the little STO makes).

Do agree with most of your points though.

I don't think we are very far apart. Basically the financial system is off in baseball.

Off in every sport (not as much in football), but yeah seems like we're on the same wavelength.

Well I basically only follow baseball and football. I do follow English Premier League soccer a little and it may be worse than baseball but there are a few trophies (some are won by the lesser clubs) and the relegation thing is kind of unique. Football does have a better system and it is thriving while baseball is not.

Disagree here. How is baseball not thriving? I mean, yeah it's not king but it's still doing very well. Yeah a few teams are strugglign (Cleveland, TB, Oakland)...then again, football isn't immune either (Minny, Jax, Buffalo). Football is definitely #1, but baseball is doing very well for itself.

Hermie13 wrote:I disagree on the cap. Non-guaranteed salaries plays a bigger role IMO.

IMO you missed the biggest thing....all TV deals are done internally and NO REGIONAL CABLE CHANNELS. There is no YES network making nearly $100M a year for the Yanks (vs the little STO makes).

Do agree with most of your points though.

I don't think we are very far apart. Basically the financial system is off in baseball.

Off in every sport (not as much in football), but yeah seems like we're on the same wavelength.

Well I basically only follow baseball and football. I do follow English Premier League soccer a little and it may be worse than baseball but there are a few trophies (some are won by the lesser clubs) and the relegation thing is kind of unique. Football does have a better system and it is thriving while baseball is not.

Disagree here. How is baseball not thriving? I mean, yeah it's not king but it's still doing very well. Yeah a few teams are strugglign (Cleveland, TB, Oakland)...then again, football isn't immune either (Minny, Jax, Buffalo). Football is definitely #1, but baseball is doing very well for itself.

Football is clearly number one, but baseball is clearly #2, IMO. You're going to tell me basketball is more popular than baseball in this country right now? I don't buy it. Certainly won't be soccer, MMA, boxing, or anything of that nature.

However, if you want to break things down a bit, here's how things might look in the hearts of Americans..

A.Zajac wrote:Football is clearly number one, but baseball is clearly #2, IMO. You're going to tell me basketball is more popular than baseball in this country right now? I don't buy it. Certainly won't be soccer, MMA, boxing, or anything of that nature.

However, if you want to break things down a bit, here's how things might look in the hearts of Americans..

I don't agree that baseball is clearly #2. In fact, you are omitting NASCAR which (while not a team sport) is either number 1 or 2. Problem is MLB was #1 when I was a kid and it has been losing it's edge. It may be thriving some but ratings are down.

daingean wrote:I don't agree that baseball is clearly #2. In fact, you are omitting NASCAR which (while not a team sport) is either number 1 or 2. Problem is MLB was #1 when I was a kid and it has been losing it's edge. It may be thriving some but ratings are down.

MLB was #1...and it's a clear #2 still. NASCAR has rising but it's not there. Here's the results of the recent Harris Poll (take it for what it's worth, not the only source):